seo uk

"Stacey" <stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns970EA94C2285Dcastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 01:58:30 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com
wrote:

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

From a site going to Bill's page. To many I think BTW for Google
to like it isn't like it is his site going to another page on his
site but another site giving him to much at one time to artifical.

So basically I can harm your site with adding just 800 links to your
site from mine? Doubt it.

The key difference between that and what Stacey suggests may be
happening is the obl from me to them, whoever they may be, which
implies tacit approval on my part making me a bad guy too.

But that would mean that every site someone links to can organize an
attack... I doubt it.

You are just to trusting.:-) Remember Google says "there is *almost*
nothing a competitor can do". It doesn't say nothing at all. The way
all those links can cause problems is that it gives to much unrelated
links going to the site making it less relavant. When a site link back
it becomes related to the other site and all the links that other site
links out to. Bascally one needs to keep watch with thyeir links and
such.

Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800 links
from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as one link,
maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone has
a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800 links (or
there about).


--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

On 15 Nov 2005 03:25:23 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

"Stacey" <stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"John Bokma" <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns970EA94C2285Dcastleamber (AT) 130 (DOT) 133.1.4...
Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 01:58:30 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com
wrote:

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

From a site going to Bill's page. To many I think BTW for Google
to like it isn't like it is his site going to another page on his
site but another site giving him to much at one time to artifical.

So basically I can harm your site with adding just 800 links to your
site from mine? Doubt it.

The key difference between that and what Stacey suggests may be
happening is the obl from me to them, whoever they may be, which
implies tacit approval on my part making me a bad guy too.

But that would mean that every site someone links to can organize an
attack... I doubt it.

You are just to trusting.:-) Remember Google says "there is *almost*
nothing a competitor can do". It doesn't say nothing at all. The way
all those links can cause problems is that it gives to much unrelated
links going to the site making it less relavant. When a site link back
it becomes related to the other site and all the links that other site
links out to. Bascally one needs to keep watch with thyeir links and
such.

Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800 links
from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as one link,

I don't know if they would count as "just one link" but I will go
along with the possible theory of not all 800 counting as 800 but as
800 coming from one domain, so may be open to be "downgraded" based on
where they are all originating from. On Google that may be downgraded
through the amount of PR flow that is counted (at least that is one
way they could downgrade it) which could leave the question - will
they count the one with the higher PR value or the lower PR value - or
a middle value of the two?

*looks at cup of coffee* All this supposition has made me hanker a
refill ...

maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone has
a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800 links (or
there about).
does a bad Arnold Horshach impression>Oh! Oh! Oh!</impression

You can link to my humor site.

If you do then I can list the rankings for two SERPs and the current
PR of the main page for later comparison. Which brings in the
question: do I reciprocate a link your way before or after the next PR
update?

Carol

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:25:23 +0100, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com>
wrote:

You are just to trusting.:-) Remember Google says "there is *almost*
nothing a competitor can do". It doesn't say nothing at all. The way
all those links can cause problems is that it gives to much unrelated
links going to the site making it less relavant. When a site link back
it becomes related to the other site and all the links that other site
links out to. Bascally one needs to keep watch with thyeir links and
such.

Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800
links from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as
one link,
maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone
has a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800
links (or there about).

Far from being decisive, here is a story of what happened
to me in August:

Somewhere in May I have prepared a joke - recursive script
generating infinite number of pages - very similar pages,
but different enough to be not identical. Script was running
not on chembuddy.com, but on other site. On every generated
page there was a link to chembuddy and to the main script
page. Knowing Google behaviors I have never expected the
script to be deeply indexed, however, I was interested
what will happen to the PR of the main script page. I have
mentioned the script URL once somewhere - and as expected,
Google have checked main page and ignored everything else.
To say the truth, I have forgot about the whole thing.

Then in August Google started indexing the script (there
were rumours G is indexing everything just to be able to
state they have the largest base of indexed pages). It was
heavy hailstorm - totalling 576k Googlebot hits in August
with peak of 87k hits on August 28th. Once I have realized
what is going on I have modified the script with nofollow to
stop googlebot from crawling deeper, but I did a stupid mistake
which allowed G to go one level deeper then I planned. Note that
every next level is three times the size of the previous. At some
point Google was reporting over 200k indexed pages on my site.

Then I have noticed that my SERPs plummeted down. Note that
chembuddy was still in sandbox and the SERPs were somwehere
in #200-#300. Nonetheless, they completely dissapeared. That was
just the moment that googlebowling was mentioned on a.i.s-e so
you can imagine cold sweat on my forehead What I did was I
immediately blocked script spidering with robots.txt and I have
removed all indexed pages from google. In about week or two
chembuddy SERPs were back where they were before.

There are two things that can make this story completely out
of subject - first, chembuddy was still in sandbox, second -
the script has two language versions. English one pointing to
chembuddy and Polish pointing to the other site. Other site
survived without any problems, even if the Polish script was
indexed just as heavily.

An additional observation - Googlebot sometimes looses URLs from
indexed pages. I don't remember exact detail right now, but as
every next level is three times the size of previous one, you
may expect it to index:

level number of pages
1 3
2 9
3 27
4 81
5 243
6 729
....
11 177147
12 531441

and so on, but that was not the case, as the real number
of different pages indexed was:
1 3
2 6
3 18
4 54
5 162
6 387
....
11 94041
12 183149

One URL was lost at 1st level, then something happened
at 5th level (or perhaps at 4th) and so on.

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com - chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - program for pH calculations
CASC - Concentration and Solution Calculator
pH lectures - guide to hand pH calculation with examples

""Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"" <PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote

<snip>

no, I mean gross over use of SEO


snip
--
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.

Hmmm, <just looks above and does some thinking> Hmmm

Yep I am going to just hold my tongue with the domain overuse and blatantly
showing it.

Stacey

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:57:24 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
<PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:


You're suggesting it's over-optimised for the term. You maybe right.
Mind you, it is kind of what the site is about! I spread it through
internal links, external links, header tags etc together with normal
text so I may not be over-egging the pudding like I might seem to be.

but, if as I said, the idea of modern S.E. algorythims is to view sites
from a "human" eye,

They are? I suppose it's one interpretation. Seeking the most relevant
return to an enquiry is probably the usual concept of an algo's work.

then to my human eye, it is "over egged" to the
point of being an omlette!

Pet, you do your own coding, do you not? Look at the spread of
keywords.

ALso, why ever haven't you transfered your site to a key-word related
site like......... increasesearchengineposition.co.uk (yes, still
available)


It actually isn't a related keyword.

Are you 100% sure?

I know to humans it looks that
way but to an engine it's just one long word that it doesn't relate to
anything.

Oh, perhaps you need to tell Google that then, because it is and has
been highlighting strings of words that appear in the same order as
searched key-words (regardless of spacing or lack thereof) for what I
would consider to be a long time.

I'd need an example of what you mean to comment on here.

Also they don't actually count for much and I wasn't keen
because when they started appearing it was all these bandwagon jumpers
doing it, I was around for a long time before that. I considered
alpha-seo.com and big-dog-seo.com and the usual variants but I
thought, these people are trying to join who I am, not the other way
around.

But the _do_ work from IMHO a S.E. perspective and, more importantly, a
searchers perspective.

Somone looking for a specific product is more likely to click
www.discount-specific-products.com than www.Mr-thingummy.com

Click where? That's not what comes up. Kruse comes up and that could
be anything. Further investigation reveals it to be Kruse Internet
Services. If it were Kruse Geriatric Dogs Home yes I'd have changed
it. It's relevant as it is and, unlike all these pesky noobs, it has
provenance.

Point taken. It's the top left link, most home links are.

No, most home links are titled "home" that's what everyone is looking for.

Top left is where they look for it. I did wonder about this, but most
people don't mention problems. Something I did wonder a good long time
about was changing the traditional "Contact Us" link to "Your SEO
Enquiry" but I get more enquiries since I changed it. Could be other
factors. Then again it might not be. It's always impossible really to
absolutely determine anything in so volatile a medium.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote

On 15 Nov 2005 03:25:23 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800 links
from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as one link,

Again I am not talking about PR. PR has nothing to do with what I am saying.

I don't know if they would count as "just one link" but I will go
along with the possible theory of not all 800 counting as 800 but as
800 coming from one domain, so may be open to be "downgraded" based on
where they are all originating from. On Google that may be downgraded
through the amount of PR flow that is counted (at least that is one
way they could downgrade it) which could leave the question - will
they count the one with the higher PR value or the lower PR value - or
a middle value of the two?

*looks at cup of coffee* All this supposition has made me hanker a
refill ...

maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone has
a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800 links (or
there about).
does a bad Arnold Horshach impression>Oh! Oh! Oh!</impression

Again not speaking about PR here. I think Google now looks at the amount of
links accumulate at one time. This going to the part with people buying
links and or exchanging back and forth. But the main part I am saying is
that the related part of your site is changed more. Links have a thing in
making your site relevant. The more non related links you have from what you
do and the sites your site becomes related to and if it isn't related to
what your site is about you will start dropping.

You can link to my humor site.

If you do then I can list the rankings for two SERPs and the current
PR of the main page for later comparison. Which brings in the
question: do I reciprocate a link your way before or after the next PR
update?

Your 2 sites will be kind of related as John talks about everything on his
site as well as your humor sites talks about everything. So what I am saying
can harm it won't do for that. Remember - Look through what I have said, I
never mentioned PR.

Stacey

"Stacey" <Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

Your 2 sites will be kind of related as John talks about everything on
his site as well as your humor sites talks about everything. So what I
am saying can harm it won't do for that. Remember - Look through what
I have said, I never mentioned PR.

Ok, your theory is that a site is going to drop if another site makes a
high number of links (say 800) to it, and not related.

How soon do you expect this drop in SERPs?

Since my site is about everything except the kitchen sink, can I safely
link to every site (except the kitchen sink ones) :-D ?

I still want to do this experiment :-D.

--
John Perl SEO tools: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
or have them custom made
Experienced (web) developer: http://castleamber.com/

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:46:02 +0100, "Stacey"
<Remove-the-Y-stacey (AT) staceyssimplestuff (DOT) com> wrote:

"Carol W" <from_you (AT) nomail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:m6rin1pj4oeri2t1td11pkep286t26thr3 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
On 15 Nov 2005 03:25:23 GMT, John Bokma <john (AT) castleamber (DOT) com> wrote:

snip


Again, I still doubt it. What's the current PR of phpbb.com? As always I
think: does it harm the visitor? Like I said, I can imagine that 800 links
from one site a to site b don't count as 800 links, but just as one link,

Again I am not talking about PR. PR has nothing to do with what I am saying.


I don't know if they would count as "just one link" but I will go
along with the possible theory of not all 800 counting as 800 but as
800 coming from one domain, so may be open to be "downgraded" based on
where they are all originating from. On Google that may be downgraded
through the amount of PR flow that is counted (at least that is one
way they could downgrade it) which could leave the question - will
they count the one with the higher PR value or the lower PR value - or
a middle value of the two?

*looks at cup of coffee* All this supposition has made me hanker a
refill ...

maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less. But harming b? Doubt it. If anyone has
a nice proof, or want to cooperate in a proof, I can provide 800 links (or
there about).
does a bad Arnold Horshach impression>Oh! Oh! Oh!</impression

Again not speaking about PR here. I think Google now looks at the amount of
links accumulate at one time. This going to the part with people buying
links and or exchanging back and forth.

Or not want to become listed in a blog site's "Favorite links" sidebar
listing?

In using your theory: I think if I got John to share to 800 links my
way from one domain will be noted to beign from one domain,

AFter all, isn't part of some of the Google Sandbox theory based on
the number of links accumluated in a period of time triggers the
sandbox effect? But I think there would be certain filters thoughts in
place to raise flags versus just "Carol's site just got 800 IBLs from
one site" It wouldn't be clear on if I bought those links (as if I did
buy the site wide links from John then I bought the links pointing
one-way (to me) or if John is a blog site (some of those list
"favorite links" sitewide in the side bar versus on a separate page)
or if John may be sharing site wide links my way in hopes of hurting
my rankings.


But the main part I am saying is

that the related part of your site is changed more. Links have a thing in
making your site relevant. The more non related links you have from what you
do and the sites your site becomes related to and if it isn't related to
what your site is about you will start dropping.

I can see how a leaning to :like linking to like: could be used to
favor a site's IBLs (&-or OBLs). But if the leaning is to "related to
or not related to" criteria - this won't have the # of accumulated
links workign against you but the contents of those individual pages
those links are on may not be helpful.

You said John's site is about everything and my humor site is about
everything. But this doesnt' mean that John sharing a link my way from
his pages about PERL would share "related to" thoughts behind those
links. In terms of "related to", I could share a site wide link to
yoru rug site ... but we can agree not every page on my site is
related to your site's contents. Maybe the "open letter" page and a
couple of others, but not the one about breasts.

"Related to" or theming is not ne in linking habits. I recall way back
when Sam was big into blog spamming. He and this other guy posted
comments on a site. They each took 2 to 3 turns posting their comment
anchor text rich spam. On AllTheWeb that one page "related to"
thoughts no longer were about a new father posting about his son's
birth (so parenting, father, birth, and such didnt' head the list of
suggested "related to" thoughts) but, in ATW's 'mind', it was related
to phone sex and fake IDs. Remember that Sam liked to pick pages to
comment spam that were PR5 or higher. Now ATW is owned by Yahoo ...

So theming has been around - just that it wasn't always "obvious" on
certain SEs. and this doesn't mean that some of the SEs may not start
leanign a bit more to bringing in some theme thoughts to help on
relevancy on SERPs. So non-related "theme"" links may not count for as
much - but I dont' think they will be ignored.

I don't know if one set of 800 iBLs from one domain name would be
enough to trigger a flag. Woudl it be the number of IBls that woudl
raise the flag? Then what about mirror sites (say like the ones that
mirror usenet groups), would Google treat those differently or not? I
mean if a competitor posted your URL to a group that is not related to
your site - then that post is mirrored to 600 pages on the web, the #
alone could work against you &-or the number of possible "unrelated"
sites/pages sharing that link.

I don't know, seems rather broad brush and I can't help but think
there would be other criteria in place to trigger "you know, Ithink
this person went on a link buying/reciprocal link spree ..." thought
to curb some potential abuse by someone ticked off at another person
or a competitor tryign to swng things in their favor.

You can link to my humor site.

If you do then I can list the rankings for two SERPs and the current
PR of the main page for later comparison. Which brings in the
question: do I reciprocate a link your way before or after the next PR
update?


Your 2 sites will be kind of related as John talks about everything on his
site as well as your humor sites talks about everything. So what I am saying
can harm it won't do for that.

Remember - Look through what I have said, I never mentioned PR.

I don't think I said you mentioned PR.

I did mention PR in terms of "averaging thoughts" - but due to Google
being mentioned and someone else mentioning PR thoughts and that they
didn't think/feel Google counted all the links from one site as
individual links (on equal footing). I mean Google shares META
descript from time to time in SERPs but not many beleive that Google
uses META in the algo or that, on Google's side, META descript "counts
for much, if at all". But PR is still theorized being part of the algo
and one of hte reasons people buy or heavily reciprocate links is
generally due to PR thoughts being part of the reason behing them
doing so.

yeah, I know - I am ramblish today. I haven't had any coffee yet. Let
me go brew a pot.
Carol

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:57:24 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
<PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Big Bill wrote:

Also they don't actually count for much and I wasn't keen
because when they started appearing it was all these bandwagon jumpers
doing it, I was around for a long time before that. I considered
alpha-seo.com and big-dog-seo.com and the usual variants but I
thought, these people are trying to join who I am, not the other way
around.

But the _do_ work from IMHO a S.E. perspective and, more importantly, a
searchers perspective.

Somone looking for a specific product is more likely to click
www.discount-specific-products.com than www.Mr-thingummy.com

I think a person searching for a specific product would do more than
look at those two above URLs to decide to click on the first one.
That's where the snippet or abstract shared on the results page can
swing the user to click on the second one, even it didnt' share one
hyphen between words or did not use specific keywords/products words
in the domain name.

Hyphenated keyword domain names can possible give a site a bit of help
in the rankings - but then, if not having a hyphenated domain name, so
can good copy (text contents). Some hyphenated domain names can look
spammish too - this is where the abstract, or snippet, shared on the
result pages can tip the balance on which site the user will click on
first.

Point taken. It's the top left link, most home links are.

No, most home links are titled "home" that's what everyone is looking for.

Home, Main, Back to Main, Index, et al.
Some people don't list "home" or "main" text links but the logo itself
being the way back to the main page.
And then some people don't use "Home" or "main" but keywords or the
site's name instead to make use of the anchor text.

People may be more accustomed to "Home" or "main" shared.
Then again, I am designing a site that will not have a link named
"home", "main", or using the site's name (or URL) for the anchor text
and debating using a logo (so won't have that for linking back ot the
main page with) but people will be able to go back to the main page
from others in the site. *shrug*

Carol

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:10:45 GMT, "Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)"
<PeTe33 (AT) gymratz (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Hmmm, <just looks above and does some thinking> Hmmm

Yep I am going to just hold my tongue with the domain overuse and blatantly
showing it.

:¬)

It's not "over use" it's effective, both in terms of extremely obvious
and instant description of what each site sells, with the added
re-inforcement of the 1 line description, not only that, it surely
provides an extremely key-word related "link through".

In response to Bills query on why it is appropriate, i.e. examples, one
obvious one is a search for "search engine" which google highlights the
letters "searchengine" darker than "watch" on "searchenginewatch.com"

Thhat has been discussed in the past on here. In none hyphenated
domain names those words may be highlighted but no proof evident in
those words, in this case "search" or "engine" counting - it was other
factors on that page, coming up in the SERPs, that had
searchenginewatch being favored over a site with a hyphenated domain
name that happened to contain search and engine as part of the
keywords chosen for tht domain name.

For example, I had a site with 3 keyowrds in the domain name - non
hyphenated - that was #1 for years for the phrase those 3 words
composed. On Google the domain name was highlighted when someone did a
search on those 3 words.

Just because Google hightlights doesn't mean "it is counted". For
example Google recommends to keep <title></title> around 60 characters
in length but, on the results pages, they may display more than 60
characters. A keyword shared starting in the 80th character position
may be highlighted, but may not have counted as much, or een at all -
due ot its location, even though it is highlighted.

It also decides the "gym" in "gymratz.co.uk" is, curiously related to
the site content for search terms like "gym equipment" and highlights
the relevant part thus so.
Read above response ... highlighted doesnt' mean it counted. Just

means that the letters g y m appeared, in that order, within the the
letters of the non-hyphenated domain name If you wanted gym to count
as a keyword - then you should've put a hyphen between it and ratz.

I would gander that you mention the word gym a few times, probably
aroudn 2 to 3%of the content, plus have it in strong or headign markup
plus have links pointed to that site that use anchor text to seperate
the word from gym and ratz that way.

Google also, from time to time, shared META description info as the
snippet, or abstract, on the results pages. This doesnt' mean that
META descript counts for anything, if at all, on Google's side. .

I find it hard to believe Bill is not aware of this, admittedly the
colour change is quite subtle, but surely somone would have bought the
matter up before now?

Yep, over a year a half to two years ago when Google first started
doing it. I think some regs from this group also tested it thus the
conclusion it only helps, and only on a small level, if there is a
hyphen between to make it a standalone word.

Carol